Jason L Vassy1,2, Kelsey E O'Brien1, Jessica L Waxler3, Elyse R Park2,4, Linda M Delahanty2,5, Jose C Florez2,5,6,7, James B Meigs1,2, Richard W Grant1,2. 1. General Medicine Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (JLV, KEO, JBM, RWG) 2. Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (JLV, ERP, LMD, JCF, JBM, RWG) 3. Partners Center for Human Genetics, Boston, Massachusetts (JLW) 4. Mongan Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (ERP) 5. Diabetes Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (LMD, JCF) 6. Center for Human Genetic Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (JCF) 7. Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broand Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts (JCF)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes genetic risk testing might motivate at-risk patients to adopt diabetes prevention behaviors. However, the influence of literacy and numeracy on patient response to diabetes genetic risk is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the association of health literacy, genetic literacy, and health numeracy with patient responses to diabetes genetic risk. DESIGN: and Measurements Overweight patients at high phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes were recruited for a clinical trial of diabetes genetic risk testing. At baseline, participants predicted how their motivation for lifestyle modification to prevent diabetes might change in response to hypothetical scenarios of receiving "high" and "low" genetic risk results. Responses were analyzed according to participants' health literacy, genetic literacy, and health numeracy. RESULTS: Two-thirds (67%) of participants (n = 175) reported very high motivation to prevent diabetes. Despite high health literacy (92% at high school level), many participants had limited health numeracy (30%) and genetic literacy (38%). Almost all (98%) reported that high-risk genetic results would increase their motivation for lifestyle modification. In contrast, response to low-risk genetic results varied. Higher levels of health literacy (P = 0.04), genetic literacy (P = 0.02), and health numeracy (P = 0.02) were associated with an anticipated decrease in motivation for lifestyle modification in response to low-risk results. CONCLUSIONS: While patients reported that high-risk genetic results would motivate them to adopt healthy lifestyle changes, response to low-risk results varied by patient numeracy and literacy. However, anticipated responses may not correlate with true behavior change. If future research justifies the clinical use of genetic testing to motivate behavior change, it may be important to assess how patient characteristics modify that motivational effect.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Type 2 diabetes genetic risk testing might motivate at-risk patients to adopt diabetes prevention behaviors. However, the influence of literacy and numeracy on patient response to diabetes genetic risk is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the association of health literacy, genetic literacy, and health numeracy with patient responses to diabetes genetic risk. DESIGN: and Measurements Overweight patients at high phenotypic risk for type 2 diabetes were recruited for a clinical trial of diabetes genetic risk testing. At baseline, participants predicted how their motivation for lifestyle modification to prevent diabetes might change in response to hypothetical scenarios of receiving "high" and "low" genetic risk results. Responses were analyzed according to participants' health literacy, genetic literacy, and health numeracy. RESULTS: Two-thirds (67%) of participants (n = 175) reported very high motivation to prevent diabetes. Despite high health literacy (92% at high school level), many participants had limited health numeracy (30%) and genetic literacy (38%). Almost all (98%) reported that high-risk genetic results would increase their motivation for lifestyle modification. In contrast, response to low-risk genetic results varied. Higher levels of health literacy (P = 0.04), genetic literacy (P = 0.02), and health numeracy (P = 0.02) were associated with an anticipated decrease in motivation for lifestyle modification in response to low-risk results. CONCLUSIONS: While patients reported that high-risk genetic results would motivate them to adopt healthy lifestyle changes, response to low-risk results varied by patient numeracy and literacy. However, anticipated responses may not correlate with true behavior change. If future research justifies the clinical use of genetic testing to motivate behavior change, it may be important to assess how patient characteristics modify that motivational effect.
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Toni K King; Purushottam W Laud; B Alexendra Matthews; Joan M Neuner; Elisabeth Hayes Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2008 Jul-Aug
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Janice P Tzeng; Sarah E Lillie; Alrick S Edwards; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2008-12-02 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Mary Margaret Huizinga; Adam J Carlisle; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Dianne L Davis; Rebecca P Gregory; David G Schlundt; Russell L Rothman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Mary Margaret Huizinga; Bettina M Beech; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2008-06-05 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Serena Chao; J Scott Roberts; Theresa M Marteau; Rebecca Silliman; L Adrienne Cupples; Robert C Green Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: James B Meigs; Peter Shrader; Lisa M Sullivan; Jarred B McAteer; Caroline S Fox; Josée Dupuis; Alisa K Manning; Jose C Florez; Peter W F Wilson; Ralph B D'Agostino; L Adrienne Cupples Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Catharine Wang; Erynn S Gordon; Tricia Norkunas; Lisa Wawak; Ching-Ti Liu; Michael Winter; Rachel S Kasper; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Deborah J Bowen Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Stacy Cooper Bailey; Angela G Brega; Trisha M Crutchfield; Tom Elasy; Haley Herr; Kimberly Kaphingst; Andrew J Karter; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Chandra Y Osborn; Michael Pignone; Russell Rothman; Dean Schillinger Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Gillian W Hooker; Holly Peay; Lori Erby; Theodore Bayless; Barbara B Biesecker; Debra L Roter Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Zainab Samaan; Karleen M Schulze; Catherine Middleton; Jane Irvine; Phillip Joseph; Andrew Mente; Baiju R Shah; Guillaume Pare; Dipika Desai; Sonia S Anand Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2013-08-20